The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging an order in W.P. No.24286/2023. The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and held the petition devoid of merits.
Review petition dismissed as it is devoid of merits and no error apparent on the face of the record is found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:21231 RP No. 111 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 111 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT HOSUR VILLAGE, TELEGAVARA POST, KAIVARA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN-562 105.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B. HARAVIGOWDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:21231 RP No. 111 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 RESIDING AT NO.1349, 4TH CROSS ROAD, R.P.C. LAYOUT HAMPINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 104.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI. P.V. CHANDRA SHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.24286/2023 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.01.2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 25.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.24286/2023, whereby the said petition preferred by the petitioners was allowed of by this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:21231 RP No. 111 of 2024
1406, wherein it is held as under:-
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to
NC: 2024:KHC:21231 RP No. 111 of 2024
be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:21231 RP No. 111 of 2024
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is
devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record to justify interfering with the previous order.
Whether the errors alleged are substantial and compelling enough to warrant a departure from the finality principle.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar RawatReferred¶31
Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020
S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai KannanReferred¶31
S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 · Who else cites this
S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana ReddyReferred¶31
S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax OfficerReferred¶31
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer – 2023 SCC Online SC 1406 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Lakshmikanthamma W/o Late Thirumalagiriappa
Sri. Amarnath H T S/o Late Thirumalagiriappa
Sri. Manjunath H.T. S/o Late Thirumalagiriappa
Sri. T. Balaji Prasad S/o Thirumalagiriappa M
Sri. Raghavendra Prasad S/o Thimarariyappa M
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
S.R. Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
